## Facts

- Georgianna London worked for G.T.E. of Pennsylvania (GTE) for about seven and one-half years.
- During the relevant period, London’s job involved preparing GTE’s telephone directories.
- GTE discovered London had at least five delinquent residential telephone service accounts with GTE, opened under various names, with total past-due charges exceeding $800 (about $867.47), and that London knew of the arrearages.
- The accounts were tied to London’s personal use as a customer; in obtaining at least one service, London applied using the middle and last names of her husband and son and used her five-year-old son’s Social Security number.
- After investigating and linking London to the accounts, GTE told London she could resign or be discharged; London resigned.
- London applied for unemployment compensation benefits.
- The Office of Employment Security denied benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (willful misconduct).
- A referee affirmed the denial, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed, making its own findings based on the hearing record.
- London appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, arguing, among other things, that her conduct was not sufficiently related to her employment to constitute disqualifying willful misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether London’s deceptive conduct in obtaining and maintaining personal telephone service accounts with her employer, resulting in substantial arrearages, was sufficiently related to her job as a directory preparer to constitute willful misconduct under Section 402(e), disqualifying her from benefits.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court reversed the Board’s decision denying benefits under Section 402(e).
- Even accepting the Board’s findings about London’s deceptive account practices and unpaid balances, the court held the conduct was not sufficiently related to her specific work duties (telephone directory preparation) to be disqualifying willful misconduct.
- The court rejected the Board’s reliance on precedent involving employees of state agencies who violated statutes enforced by their employing agency, concluding those cases did not control a dispute involving a private employer and a personal consumer account.

## Legal Principles

- Section 402(e) disqualifies a claimant from unemployment compensation only when the separation is due to “willful misconduct” connected to the claimant’s work in a way that justifies forfeiture of benefits.
- Dishonest or wrongful conduct is not automatically disqualifying; it must have a sufficiently direct relationship to the claimant’s job duties, job qualifications, or the employer’s work-related interests in the particular position.
- Prior cases involving state-agency employees who violated laws enforced by their employing agency (such as public welfare fraud by a Department of Public Welfare employee) rest on the special expectation that agency employees not violate statutes the agency enforces; that rationale does not apply in the same way to private employers.
- When misconduct consists of concealment or falsification, disqualification turns on materiality—whether the falsity bears a meaningful relation to the claimant’s employment qualifications or the work performed.
- Appellate review is limited to whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or necessary findings lack substantial evidence; a legal error occurs when the Board applies Section 402(e) without the required work-related connection.

## Conclusion

The Commonwealth Court held that although London’s handling of her personal telephone service accounts involved deception and significant arrearages, the conduct arose from her customer relationship with GTE and was not shown to be materially related to her job preparing telephone directories; therefore, it did not constitute disqualifying willful misconduct under Section 402(e), and the Board’s denial of benefits was reversed.


London v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 111 Pa. Commw. Ct. 132, 533 A.2d 792 (1987)